Christian Tismer wrote:
>
> I don't try to solve this, either. But since I'm writing some kind of
> platform independant threads (isn't it funny? by using non-portable
> tricks, I get some portable threads), I'd like to think about how
> this world *could* look like. Maybe I have a chance to provide an
> (u)thread implementation which is really what people would want for
> real threads?
No, you don't. Real threads have one killer advantage you just can't
emulate: they can parallelize I/O operations (and theoretically
parallelize computations on multiple CPUs). The advantage of
microthreads has been that they're lightweight, so they're good for
applications that require *lots* of threads, such as simulations. I
think keeping this advantage would be a Good Idea.
You might want to look at Ruby, though, because it does what you're
wanting to do. (I think -- I haven't touched Ruby myself.)
--
--- Aahz (@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
We must not let the evil of a few trample the freedoms of the many.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4